"Benjamin Britten at 100 - time for a new appraisal?"

[Lateralthinking1]

Possibly because he did not have syphilis? Endocarditis causes valvular heart disease. He had a history of rheumatic fever. That's all we need to know. What is the point of this grubby searching for other possible diseases for others to titter at?

Flay - erm that was my point . I found Petch's point on this compelling and Kildea failed to give any answer as to how it could have missed then .

Sorry - but while he just might have had a congenital condition, more of which later, he did not have a history of rheumatic fever. My father, now 82, was not permitted to do National Service on account of his rheumatic fever in childhood. You will find many other examples on the net - Walden Robert Cassotto anyone? It is mainly a condition of poverty - overcrowding, poor hygiene etc - and is not at all typical of Britten's early background. To pretend he had the illness is a disservice to those who actually did.

There was a good reason why those with rheumatic fever in their childhood medical records - yes, there were such things even among the working classes - were not accepted into the forces. Rheumatic fever is always a significant burden to an army when it is contracted by serving personnel. The military certainly didn't want people with an earlier history of it entering the ranks. Britten may well have had severe bouts of childhood influenza but his heart was found to be very healthy in a routine medical in 1938.

Had Britten had rheumatic fever, he would have remembered it. Most cases occur after the age of six and require containment. And I can find no evidence in biographies that the illness ever occurred. Several articles place the word 'possibly' or 'probably' before the phrase 'rheumatic fever in childhood' in an assessment of what then happened in his adulthood. Such references are a vague adjunct from a perspective of hindsight. At most, they reinforce an accepted view that he was indulged to the extent that myths about his early sickliness were permitted to flourish. Clearly he did not think that he had had rheumatic fever, otherwise he could simply have pointed to his medical records. Why risk the unpopularity of being a CO? Well, yes, some would have risked it. The ones who were proud to be COs and to hell with public opinion. But the one thing about Britten on which everyone agrees is that he had a lifelong need to be respected and adored. That would not have been at all consistent with choosing alienation.

So much for 1942. Back in 1939, he had left for the United States. If one merely considers his pacifist work in the 1930s, which included collaborations on the Spanish Civil War, it is possible to argue that he was highly principled. The sudden disappearance across the pond, though, suggests the very opposite. Was he clear about his objectives? No. We are told he was 'muddled'. Would he have chosen to leave? Probably not. Within less than three years he was homesick. And while international politics had changed rapidly during the 1930s, it was not a coincidence that his pacifism emerged seemingly from nowhere following his initial meeting with Peter Pears. There is no evidence that it had been felt deeply in earlier decades. Later, the War Requiem does on the surface imply consistency but it was an establishment work for an establishment occasion. He wasn't marching with others then in CND.

Turning to that suggestion of a congenital condition, strangely there was much hearsay but again there were no medical records. Just as in the case of rheumatic fever, he would not with a congenital condition have needed to be a CO. I therefore have very strong doubts about that too. A medical opinion in 2013 is one thing but the historical context is also important. Here is a little more of that context which this month's newspapers have brushed aside. Eric Walter White in his book 'Benjamin Britten : His Life and Operas' writes: 'The mental struggle whether to stay in America or return to England was echoed by a physical illness. He suffered from an acute streptococcal infection during the whole of 1940. (It was perhaps typical of Auden that he should claim this illness was nothing more than the physical expression of Britten's psychological indecision).' Yes, but there is the key illness!! The rate of syphilis peaked in the USA in 1947 at 106,000 cases but was dramatically reduced with the introduction of antibiotics.

Let's be clear about this one. If he had untreated syphilis, does it matter? I don't see why it should do. If he didn't want to fight the fascists on account of his sexual orientation, that is understandable although composers like Cooke did fight and were never lauded. If he had problems with being British and then changed his mind to some extent, fair enough, but that could matter in terms of the very high pedestal on which he is placed. And if he was genuinely a CO, whatever the evidence from three decades that he was politically no Alan Bush but rather a part of the establishment, that isn't an absolute disgrace. There were though peace conscious people on the left who had no chance of flying abroad before the war. They paid a high price for their principles.

I have described Britten in the past as like teflon and I hold to that view. Again one is minded of Tippett who was punished for his absence during the war and accepted the situation with considerable dignity. Meanwhile, who was it who somehow managed to avoid prison while simultaneously grandstanding? Yep. That was Benjamin B too. Given all of the doubts, he is probably fortunate to be held in such high esteem. He wasn't interested in legacy and yet remains for some reason especially blessed. Overall, I am less concerned about anything in his life than I am about any distortions perpetrated by modern day apologists. While the music is impressive in parts, and personal histories are often cherished, evidence-based arguments that are ignored are clearly cases won.

[Mary Chambers]

Two points.

As far as I know he was never diagnosed with rheumatic fever. The very serious illness he suffered at the age of 3 months or so was said to be pneumonia.

He was a conscientious objector because, as he said at his tribunal, "I cannot destroy". He passionately believed fighting and war to be morally wrong. He did not go to prison because it was felt he could contribute to keeping up morale by his music, and by giving concerts for CEMA.(Pears also sang with Sadler's Wells Opera. The arts were considered very important for keeping up morale.)

[Lateralthinking1]

Two points.

As far as I know he was never diagnosed with rheumatic fever. The very serious illness he suffered at the age of 3 months or so was said to be pneumonia.

He was a conscientious objector because, as he said at his tribunal, "I cannot destroy". He passionately believed fighting and war to be morally wrong. He did not go to prison because it was felt he could contribute to keeping up morale by his music, and by giving concerts for CEMA.(Pears also sang with Sadler's Wells Opera. The arts were considered very important for keeping up morale.)

Yes, thank you Mary, and I know that I have come back in quite heavily. It is mainly because of the truth about rheumatic fever and the call up. I want to help to ensure that myths aren't perpetuated. On one occasion, I was made by a manager in work to feel apologetic on my father's behalf because he didn't do National Service. Quite ridiculous - and outrageous - in view that he was rejected on clear medical grounds. Those who were medically unfit developed with different strengths and different weaknesses.

I would like to know if you are aware of any indication by Britten of his pacifism prior to 1934, the year that he met Peter Pears. He was then 20-21 and had been far brighter than most of us were in our youth. I came to politics at 12. Given that many would have been more political in the 1920s than in the 1970s - "my" era - because of the aftermath of WW1, surely there is something? While I find his comment in 1942 about being a composer and not a destroyer to some extent plausible, the not believing in the Divinity of Christ but nevertheless believing in Christ's teaching seems, at 29, just a trifle weak. Admittedly, it was accepted by officials.

[Mary Chambers]

I would like to know if you are aware of any indication by Britten of his pacifism prior to 1934, the year that he met Peter Pears. He was then 20-21 and had been far brighter than most of us were in our youth. I came to politics at 12. Given that many would have been more political in the 1920s than in the 1970s - "my" era - because of the aftermath of WW1, surely there is something?

Plenty of evidence. He was in trouble in his last year at prep school (aged 14) for writing an essay which was primarily anti-hunting but was also anti-war and fighting. At his public school he was allowed to opt out of the Officers' Training Corps (or whatever military training for schoolboys was called then). His composition teacher outside school, Frank Bridge, had told him of the evils of the First World War, and is thought to be the main influence on his thinking at that date.

There is no real evidence that he met Peter Pears, another convinced pacifist, until early 1937.

[Lateralthinking1]

Plenty of evidence. He was in trouble in his last year at prep school (aged 14) for writing an essay which was primarily anti-hunting but was also anti-war and fighting. At his public school he was allowed to opt out of the Officers' Training Corps (or whatever military training for schoolboys was called then). His composition teacher outside school, Frank Bridge, had told him of the evils of the First World War, and is thought to be the main influence on his thinking at that date.

There is no real evidence that he met Peter Pears, another convinced pacifist, until early 1937.

Thank you. I accept that part then - although I have some criticism of his public school teachers.

Conscientious objection in adulthood is a different matter as a rule although in 1939-1942 the picture was very clear.

My main point stands. He was very ambitious and quite a lot of that was about popularity. Had he been ill prior to 1940 to the extent of being ruled out from war duty, he would have logically given that as the reason. His heart was fine in 1938. To say in 1942 that he had a year long strep throat while being in America wasn't really an option. He therefore had no choice.

I am happy to say that I am not an expert on syphilis but having done some reading, the timing of his deteriorating health would be consistent as a tertiary stage of problems first encountered in the 1940s. I don't have a problem with it other than to think it a little sad, if true, and that it shouldn't be linked erroneously to childhood rheumatic fever. Other causes are also possible.

I can't agree with you on the meeting with Peter Pears. I have today listened to Pears's Desert Island Discs which was recorded in 1983. He recalled a first meeting in 1934. I had to laugh. Six of his choices featured Britten and five featured Pears himself.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I can't agree with you on the meeting with Peter Pears. I have today listened to Pears's Desert Island Discs which was recorded in 1983. He recalled a first meeting in 1934. I had to laugh. Six of his choices featured Britten and five featured Pears himself.

Why laugh? If the programme was about a widow(er) choosing 8 favourite photographs, would it be surprising to hear him/her choose six of their dead partner, five of them including the widow(er)? A trifle callous, perhaps, if you did?

[Lateralthinking1]

......Mary, can I just add that I do genuinely appreciate the fact that you have responded so thoughtfully. Very best regards.

[Mary Chambers]

I can't agree with you on the meeting with Peter Pears. I have today listened to Pears's Desert Island Discs which was recorded in 1983. He recalled a first meeting in 1934. I had to laugh. Six of his choices featured Britten and five featured Pears himself.

Yes, but he was wrong. He thought he might have met Britten briefly when singing his "A Boy was Born" with the BBC Singers. Now that there is access to records and diaries, it's been found that the dates don't add up and it wasn't possible. I've forgotten precisely why. In any case it's irrelevant.

In that DID Pears says that he wanted to recall 'a very happy life', and since his happy life was largely because of the connection with BB, it's fair enough that he should choose recordings that reminded him of that. He was getting old, and had had a stroke that stopped him from singing. Nostalgia's important at that stage of life.

I may be misinterpreting you, but you do seem to have something against Pears and Britten. If so, I wonder why.

Why do you want to criticise his public school teachers? Gresham's was a very enlightened school for its time.

[Lateralthinking1]

Why laugh? If the programme was about a widow(er) choosing 8 favourite photographs, would it be surprising to hear him/her choose six of their dead partner, five of them including the widow(er)? A trifle callous, perhaps, if you did?

Laugh wryly rather than laugh nastily. To answer your question, I do feel that it would be excessive, yes. Very. There wasn't one of the eight that didn't feature either of them or both. That isn't unique on the programme but it is highly unusual. Touching possibly but it did seem somewhat insular, especially from someone involved throughout his life in public performance. Oh well!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Laugh wryly rather than laugh nastily. To answer your question, I do feel that it would be excessive, yes. Very. There wasn't one of the eight that didn't feature either of them or both.

Oh, but Lats!! Pears had been widowed for less than seven years in 1983; the emotional and professional core of his life still rawly missed. Did you expect Plomley (?Lawley?) to tell him to pull himself together and move on?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Speaking more generally, it can raise a few questions when a musician chooses mainly his/her own recordings.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Speaking more generally, it can raise a few questions when a musician chooses mainly his/her own recordings.

Indeed; but in this instance, I think it would require a sturdier soul than mine to expect anything different.

[BBMmk2]

It must have been very pioiugnant occaision for PP to record that programme and quite tough, even after 7 years. And especiall;y suffering a stroke, which was probably due in part to the grieving process.

[Mary Chambers]

When I first heard that DID at the time in 1983, I did feel a bit surprised that he chose all those recordings of himself and/or BB. Now that I'm approximately the same age as he was then, I understand it completely.

[Lateralthinking1]

Yes, but he was wrong. He thought he might have met Britten briefly when singing his "A Boy was Born" with the BBC Singers. Now that there is access to records and diaries, it's been found that the dates don't add up and it wasn't possible. I've forgotten precisely why. In any case it's irrelevant.

In that DID Pears says that he wanted to recall 'a very happy life', and since his happy life was largely because of the connection with BB, it's fair enough that he should choose recordings that reminded him of that. He was getting old, and had had a stroke that stopped him from singing. Nostalgia's important at that stage of life.

I may be misinterpreting you, but you do seem to have something against Pears and Britten. If so, I wonder why.

Why do you want to criticise his public school teachers? Gresham's was a very enlightened school for its time.

Blimey. On the final question, I don't think that pupils should be informing teachers what they will and won't do where there are certain standard requirements. I feel much the same about children who go to court because they don't wish to wear a school uniform. Expression of opinion yes. The more the better. A power struggle no. The rules are the rules and must apply to all.

Do I have something against Pears and Britten? Not exactly. I find them an uneasy dilemma. As you have given me the opportunity to do so, I will try to answer your question as thoughtfully and respectfully as I can. Unfortunately, it won't be very eloquent.

As Britten is considered to be one of the best British composers, I would prefer that he were easier. He is though very difficult to categorise in every way. I have a concept of RVW - wonderful music, ok man - so that is easy. I find it quite easy to dismiss Elgar in the main - ok music but too establishment/nationalistic for me and as an individual he doesn't really say anything much at all.

I'm on a learning curve - I know I like Butterworth, Foulds interests me, so does Glanville-Hicks, I like Ireland's music and I can respect Tippett. I connect with each and many others in different kinds of ways - some musically, some politically and I tend to like an underdog rather than the very privileged. I am cautious wherever there are accolades and I'm not entirely convinced.

I do not dismiss difficult music with darker themes and often like mystery and impressionism in music. Where I do have a problem with Britten is that there is just so much darkness swirling around in the reports of his life. What might have sounded eerily mysterious can sound ghoulish knowing the context. His boy obsession, the way he dropped musicians at the drop of a hat, the dismissive commentary on other composers - I do find those things unpleasant, even allowing for the personal difficulties he faced. For a pacifist, he seems angry and even violent. There is over Aldborough a sinister air - I can't think of another metaphor.

Had it been Britten living with Pears as a happy couple with ordinary pleasantness in company, that would be fine. I am sure that they were very civil and welcoming to many. They must have been. At the same time there is a sense that it was a veneer and there was a lot of the ghastly lurking in corners. One of the difficulties is that it is very evident in the music. I can't really say that I take to Delius as an individual but, whatever the critics say, I don't hear Delius the person in a lot of music by Delius. His music takes me to a very different place from him and indeed others whereas with Britten it is definitely his world and his world view.